While the Michael Flynn prosecution is currently imploding, no matter how it ends, the key lesson is clear: The nakedly coercive tactics routinely used by federal prosecutors to obtain admissions of guilt render those admissions utterly unreliable — not just in Flynn’s case, but in every case. Congress should act immediately to restore public confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system by reforming this fundamentally lawless and un-American practice. And the Flynn case shows why that reform should be a top legislative priority.

In early May, federal prosecutors, on orders from Attorney General William Barr, filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn. That move prompted a cacophony of outrage and elation, as partisans flocked to the airwaves and blogosphere to proclaim, with absolute certainty, that justice had been either perverted or served. In the midst of all this, the presiding judge, Emmet Sullivan, poured gas on the proverbial flames by first inviting interested groups to submit friend-of-the-court briefs regarding whether he should grant the motion to dismiss and then by designating a prominent former judge to present arguments against the motion and also provide input on whether Flynn can be held in criminal contempt of court for recanting his earlier confession. In short, if the Flynn case were a beer commercial, it would be the most interesting case in the world.